We are returning to a time before double entry accounting.......before facts and logic it was the dark age of superstition. And government by superstition is not a long term plan.
I appreciate the logic in your argument here. I still believe in the ability of people to set aside differences for common purpose—as you’ve demonstrated by your neutrality. Unfortunately, it’s hard to do, especially at scale.
Lots of nodding from me throughout. For a long time, having started as a liberal, I was really confused about my identity when I no longer saw myself in my previous tribe. But then eventually realized I’m still a liberal, just not of the “captured” kind whose language has been appropriated and led to extremes (or made woke, pick your term).
It does take a lot of soul searching to arrive at your viewpoint though (for oneself), and lots of identity crises along the way. Like you say, we are naturally tribal. I just hope this means all is not lost. How do we put the genie back in the bottle?
I think most of us hold both liberal and conservative views, depending on the issue at hand. A well-adjusted adult wants high-quality public services (a traditionally liberal position), but also wants taxes kept reasonable and government spending held accountable (a traditionally conservative concern). They may support keeping abortion legal, while hoping their own daughter would never face the circumstances - whether elective or medical - that would lead her to need one.
This is where the tribal framework breaks down. To belong to a political tribe, we are often expected to accept positions we do not fully agree with, regardless of which side of the spectrum we occupy. Centrism, or simply holding nuanced views, tends to be less popular because binary thinking has become the norm.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point of polarisation where each side is feeding and reinforcing the worst tendencies of the other. And I am talking about highly intelligent people. Anne Applebaum, for example, follows me on Twitter, and I have admired her work since I was a teenager. Yet in a recent podcast, I noticed that despite her immense knowledge and intellectual rigour, she still overlooked some of the factors that gave rise to Trump and the MAGA movement.
Until we reach some equivalent of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I struggle to see a peaceful path forward. The alternative, unfortunately, may be crisis. It would bring damage, disruption, and suffering, but history suggests that societies often rediscover unity only when faced with a threat they all recognise as shared.
Agree with your critique of the left. And as a leftie, I’ve been arguing much the same for years. With predictable results. “But”…..look I said it…you missed one defining characteristic of the right, “woke” or otherwise. They simply don’t accept elections they don’t win. Don’t you think that makes them just a teeny-weeny a bit more awful?
Apart from Trump back in 2020 (and maybe Al Gore in 2000, but was mild in comparison), which other candidate in the US, Europe or Canada refused to concede elections? I might have missed it.
For that to become a pattern, it needs to happen consistently. I haven’t noticed a consistent refusal to concede elections. A lot of bitching and excuses - yes, I agree. But not outright refusal.
Ok, let’s widen the aperture to “undermine democratic institutions” as a defining feature of “woke right”. Clearly put into practice in USA and Hungary. Poland a few years back. Right leaning thought leaders/philosophers/big-wigs (Yarvin, Thiel et al) have been quite open about their contempt for democracy. I don’t see that on the left.
You are correct that the left does not have figures comparable to Yarvin, Thiel, and others who openly loathe the liberal democratic order. But politics is ultimately judged by outcomes, not intentions.
Had mainstream left-wing forces held their ground and remained committed to the principles of classical liberalism that the majority of their own electorate broadly supports, they might not have lost ground to the populist, illiberal right that is now causing such disruption. Instead, they wagered heavily on mobilizing fringe constituencies while continuing to support many of the same deindustrialization policies as their opponents. In doing so, they failed to recognize that the people most harmed by those policies were not urban professionals, but rural and working-class communities that were more culturally conservative and therefore particularly susceptible to the revanchist narratives offered by right-wing populists.
Many of these voters lack higher education and were less equipped to navigate increasingly complex political and media environments, making them especially susceptible to demagogues and media personalities such as Tucker Carlson, who supplied them with a steady stream of distortions, grievances, and falsehoods. Of course, their stupidity is not an excuse, and as we can see - they are the first ones to pay the bill. The rise of suicide among farmers following the abysmal policies of the current admin proves it.
The situation is not unlike what we see today among Republicans in Congress, many of whom stand by as the MAGA movement undermines long-standing democratic norms and institutions. Whether they are unable to stop it or unwilling to do so will matter little to future historians. What will matter is the outcome.
Likewise, the liberal left failed to prevent the rise of political forces that openly declared their hostility to liberal democracy. Whether that failure stemmed from incapacity, complacency, or strategic miscalculation is again - irrelevant. The outcome remains the same. And it is outcomes that shape the world we live in.
History is unforgiving in this regard. I, too, can wish that the Allies had not stopped at Berlin and had instead pushed Soviet power back out of Eastern Europe. Had that happened, my family might have survived intact, and my own life would likely have begun under far better circumstances. But that is not what happened. Whether the Western Allies were unable or unwilling to continue the fight is largely irrelevant to the historical reality that followed: half of Europe fell under a brutal authoritarian regime that set entire societies back by decades and destroyed many of the finest people those nations produced.
History remembers results far more readily than rationalizations.
As I said, you’ll find no argument from me on the culpability of liberals. So, not sure I deserved that lecture. However, since you seem the sort that wants the last word….I’ll bid adieu after one final thought: the notion that ideas and philosophies don’t matter, only outcomes do is ridiculous. Philosophies are a straight line to outcomes. You think Auschwitz or the Gulag Archipelago spontaneously popped up, and it was only then that good people should have taken notice?
I wasn’t lecturing; I was debating and further clarifying the point I was trying to make in the article. I’m not seeking the last word, so I’m not sure why my response came across that way or was interpreted as a lecture. 🤷♀️
My point, from the first line through my last comment, has been that there is a cause-and-effect relationship at work here. At the end of the day, it won’t matter whether the failure to act stemmed from unwillingness or inability - we’ve entered a cycle of decline that now needs to run its course. The opportunity to prevent it has long since passed. My hope is that the hard lessons learned from this period will endure for more than a single generation.
I’m sorry if my words came across as an attack on you; that was not my intention.
While there is some good information in the article I still disagree with the misogyny part.
This, with most other material published out there, makes it sounds like men are the misogynist for becoming aware of women’s hypergamous nature and not just serviceable to women. Women are the innocent angels/ victims. Sisterhood on display
A fabulous piece and a warning to all in the "enlightenment" WEST.
For one thing, DONT LET THE WRONG TRIBE IN.
For another, we have totally misinterpreted the original revolutionary premise of freedom FROM religion...AT OUR COST!
Brilliant. Insightful. Refreshing honesty. Thank you
Brilliantly elaborated and definitely hits close to home and makes me reconsider my own biases. Keep doing what you do!
Thank You! This was a lot.
We are returning to a time before double entry accounting.......before facts and logic it was the dark age of superstition. And government by superstition is not a long term plan.
I appreciate the logic in your argument here. I still believe in the ability of people to set aside differences for common purpose—as you’ve demonstrated by your neutrality. Unfortunately, it’s hard to do, especially at scale.
Lots of nodding from me throughout. For a long time, having started as a liberal, I was really confused about my identity when I no longer saw myself in my previous tribe. But then eventually realized I’m still a liberal, just not of the “captured” kind whose language has been appropriated and led to extremes (or made woke, pick your term).
It does take a lot of soul searching to arrive at your viewpoint though (for oneself), and lots of identity crises along the way. Like you say, we are naturally tribal. I just hope this means all is not lost. How do we put the genie back in the bottle?
I think most of us hold both liberal and conservative views, depending on the issue at hand. A well-adjusted adult wants high-quality public services (a traditionally liberal position), but also wants taxes kept reasonable and government spending held accountable (a traditionally conservative concern). They may support keeping abortion legal, while hoping their own daughter would never face the circumstances - whether elective or medical - that would lead her to need one.
This is where the tribal framework breaks down. To belong to a political tribe, we are often expected to accept positions we do not fully agree with, regardless of which side of the spectrum we occupy. Centrism, or simply holding nuanced views, tends to be less popular because binary thinking has become the norm.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point of polarisation where each side is feeding and reinforcing the worst tendencies of the other. And I am talking about highly intelligent people. Anne Applebaum, for example, follows me on Twitter, and I have admired her work since I was a teenager. Yet in a recent podcast, I noticed that despite her immense knowledge and intellectual rigour, she still overlooked some of the factors that gave rise to Trump and the MAGA movement.
Until we reach some equivalent of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I struggle to see a peaceful path forward. The alternative, unfortunately, may be crisis. It would bring damage, disruption, and suffering, but history suggests that societies often rediscover unity only when faced with a threat they all recognise as shared.
Sometimes, the only way out of hell is…though.
Agree with your critique of the left. And as a leftie, I’ve been arguing much the same for years. With predictable results. “But”…..look I said it…you missed one defining characteristic of the right, “woke” or otherwise. They simply don’t accept elections they don’t win. Don’t you think that makes them just a teeny-weeny a bit more awful?
Apart from Trump back in 2020 (and maybe Al Gore in 2000, but was mild in comparison), which other candidate in the US, Europe or Canada refused to concede elections? I might have missed it.
For that to become a pattern, it needs to happen consistently. I haven’t noticed a consistent refusal to concede elections. A lot of bitching and excuses - yes, I agree. But not outright refusal.
Ok, let’s widen the aperture to “undermine democratic institutions” as a defining feature of “woke right”. Clearly put into practice in USA and Hungary. Poland a few years back. Right leaning thought leaders/philosophers/big-wigs (Yarvin, Thiel et al) have been quite open about their contempt for democracy. I don’t see that on the left.
You are correct that the left does not have figures comparable to Yarvin, Thiel, and others who openly loathe the liberal democratic order. But politics is ultimately judged by outcomes, not intentions.
Had mainstream left-wing forces held their ground and remained committed to the principles of classical liberalism that the majority of their own electorate broadly supports, they might not have lost ground to the populist, illiberal right that is now causing such disruption. Instead, they wagered heavily on mobilizing fringe constituencies while continuing to support many of the same deindustrialization policies as their opponents. In doing so, they failed to recognize that the people most harmed by those policies were not urban professionals, but rural and working-class communities that were more culturally conservative and therefore particularly susceptible to the revanchist narratives offered by right-wing populists.
Many of these voters lack higher education and were less equipped to navigate increasingly complex political and media environments, making them especially susceptible to demagogues and media personalities such as Tucker Carlson, who supplied them with a steady stream of distortions, grievances, and falsehoods. Of course, their stupidity is not an excuse, and as we can see - they are the first ones to pay the bill. The rise of suicide among farmers following the abysmal policies of the current admin proves it.
The situation is not unlike what we see today among Republicans in Congress, many of whom stand by as the MAGA movement undermines long-standing democratic norms and institutions. Whether they are unable to stop it or unwilling to do so will matter little to future historians. What will matter is the outcome.
Likewise, the liberal left failed to prevent the rise of political forces that openly declared their hostility to liberal democracy. Whether that failure stemmed from incapacity, complacency, or strategic miscalculation is again - irrelevant. The outcome remains the same. And it is outcomes that shape the world we live in.
History is unforgiving in this regard. I, too, can wish that the Allies had not stopped at Berlin and had instead pushed Soviet power back out of Eastern Europe. Had that happened, my family might have survived intact, and my own life would likely have begun under far better circumstances. But that is not what happened. Whether the Western Allies were unable or unwilling to continue the fight is largely irrelevant to the historical reality that followed: half of Europe fell under a brutal authoritarian regime that set entire societies back by decades and destroyed many of the finest people those nations produced.
History remembers results far more readily than rationalizations.
As I said, you’ll find no argument from me on the culpability of liberals. So, not sure I deserved that lecture. However, since you seem the sort that wants the last word….I’ll bid adieu after one final thought: the notion that ideas and philosophies don’t matter, only outcomes do is ridiculous. Philosophies are a straight line to outcomes. You think Auschwitz or the Gulag Archipelago spontaneously popped up, and it was only then that good people should have taken notice?
I wasn’t lecturing; I was debating and further clarifying the point I was trying to make in the article. I’m not seeking the last word, so I’m not sure why my response came across that way or was interpreted as a lecture. 🤷♀️
My point, from the first line through my last comment, has been that there is a cause-and-effect relationship at work here. At the end of the day, it won’t matter whether the failure to act stemmed from unwillingness or inability - we’ve entered a cycle of decline that now needs to run its course. The opportunity to prevent it has long since passed. My hope is that the hard lessons learned from this period will endure for more than a single generation.
I’m sorry if my words came across as an attack on you; that was not my intention.
Have a good and peaceful weekend.
While there is some good information in the article I still disagree with the misogyny part.
This, with most other material published out there, makes it sounds like men are the misogynist for becoming aware of women’s hypergamous nature and not just serviceable to women. Women are the innocent angels/ victims. Sisterhood on display
That’s not at all what I said.
You basically proved my point. I pointed out the sins of both sides, while you only saw what you wanted to see and projected guilt that I don’t carry.